Talk:Battle of Cable Street

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Protocols

Please remove the disinformation about the BUF believing in the "Protocols". Mosley firmly discouraged all forms of conspiracism; his motivation for opposing certain Jewish elements within British society was quite clear: he and his party members didn't want England to engage herself in another war perceived as suicidal, and most Jews, of course, sympathized with their mistreated kin in Germany and were actively pushing for engagement. I don't see how this makes Mosley some irrational monster of prejudice.

You can remove that yourself, but you should reference this talk page in the edit summary when you do it. silsor 18:27, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Unsubsantiated sentence

I've removed the following sentence which is not substantiated:

The B.U.F. regarded the march as a show of strength, and insisted on proceeding in spite of widespread opposition.

The British Union of Fascists article states that the party had considerable support in the East End. Marches were used as a means of increasing support, attracting certain types of people who found the structured and discipled organisation, with its military-type hierachy, appealling, particularly given the quite poverty-striken and chaotic life in this area of London; that was the point of them. No reason is given how the BUF thought it would benefit from a 'show of strength', and the original (copyright-violated) text gave the impression that the party over-estimated its support in the area ("The battle of Cable Street showed Mosley and his blackshirts that their political beliefs were generally opposed in that area of London"), which doesn't sound like proceeding in spite of widespread opposition, which implies that the extent of this opposition was fully appreciated beforehand. All in all, this seems a POV comment, which at least needs more explanation and sources. 80.255

[edit] March route

I'm tempted to change the current page as it gives the impression that the Blackshirts were always going to try to march along Cable Street, which is not the case. It was the police who wished to divert the march along this street. Also this was NOT a jewish area i.e. the jews were a majority. Del Trotter

[edit] London History template

Added 'London History template', standardised the citation and 'rich linked' the text. Hopefully nothing contentious. I heard that the mural had been under threat - due to a change of use of the old library, but it appears to have been protected for the foreseeable future. Kbthompson 10:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BBC soundbites

Sorry folks, while somethings have a certain 'dwell time' on the BBC sites, can you note that somethings - broadcast programmes - tend to have a seven day life. Can you please bear that in mind when linking to them. Cheers Kbthompson 23:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Violation of Copyright

Removed the following:

Eyewitness Bill Fishman, 15 at the time of the battle, recalls, "I was moved to tears to see bearded Jews and Irish Catholic dockers standing up to stop Mosley. I shall never forget that as long as I live, how working-class people could get together to oppose the evil of racism." [1]

This has been lifted from the Guardian Newspaper. They "own" the quote.

The conditions of which clearly state:

You must not reproduce any part of Guardian Unlimited or the material or transmit it to or store it in any other website or disseminate any part of the material in any other form, unless we have indicated that you may do so.

http://users.guardian.co.uk/help/article/0,,933909,00.html

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Redzen (talk • contribs)

It's not a violation of copyright to quote a source, this constitutes fair use. It should be apparent to anyone with any experience of academia that it is common practice to quote sources, and this is never considered a copyright violation. What would be illegal would be not to attribute the source, because to claim it as one's own would be plaigiarism, but the source is clearly attributed, and Wikipedia doen't alow original research anyway. It's also obvious that the Guardian itself is quoting someone else here. Alun 04:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
That is irrelevant. For all you know, the Guardian may have paid for the interview. Wikipedia is not an essay or dissertation. The conditions set by the Guardian seem clear enough. As to what constitutes 'fair use' is certainly debateable in this context considering the Cable St. article is quite small. That quote (hardly essential either) looks like it constiutes about 10% of the entire article! Unless Wiki has permission from the Guardian I suggest the quote in question be kept off the article until this matter can be clearly resolved.

User:Redzen

It's not only perfectly acceptable to use quotes as fair use, but this is American copyright law, these servers are based in America, fair use is based on US law. There is absolutely no reason not to use this quotation in this article. Any short quotation is acceptable in any article as long as it's attributed. This is common practice and your reasoning is merely a rather feeble excuse, you only don't want to include the quotation due to your POV. Please do not revert this article again or I shall attempt to get it protected. Alun 09:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
From fair use

Brief attributed quotations of copyrighted text used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea may be used under fair use. Text must be used verbatim: any alterations must be clearly marked as an ellipsis ([...]) or insertion ([added text]) or change of emphasis (emphasis added). All copyrighted text must be attributed.

Alun 09:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
If the Guardian attempted to sue Wikipedia in US courts based on copyright violation because of this quote it would be laughed out of court. Your reasoning is also ludicrous. I would think it was a joke if I hadn't taken a look at your edit history and seen that you obviously have a none too savoury POV to push here. Far from being genuinely concerned about copyright, you are just attempting to keep this quote out because of your own POV. Your arguments are paper thin and are not based on any sound understanding of either copyright law or Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Alun 16:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
The quotation constitutes fair use under UK law. Where it would be wrong is if a substantial part of the original article were to be lifted. Less than 2 paras is generally considered fine for academic, review or other writing purposes. The quotation must be attributed - and it is fully. Editors should be aware that the 3R rule applies. UK & US courts are in agreement on this one. Kbthompson 19:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nazi Blackshirts

dressed in uniforms styled on those of Nazi Blackshirts

I'm not sure what "Nazi Blackshirts" are. SA-troops were Brownshirts, some SS-troops wore a black uniform at that time but I don't think they were known as Blackshirts, and the Italian Fascists with their black shirts weren't Nazis. I'm no expert though; were there "Nazi Blackshirts"? I'm considering rephrasing this to avoid inexact connotations, unless someone can shed some light here. Naphra 17:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right, and I've changed it, wiki'd to Blackshirt article. Kbthompson 19:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Anti-semitic nature of the BUF'

As the article on the BUF points out, it's position was always non anti-Semitic, despite being obviously fascist. Is there any substance to the labelling of them on this page? --Breadandcheese 06:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the assertion, since there is a preponderance of BUF sources expressly denying the anti-Semitic stance with which BUF opponents characterised them (and at that time in history, if a group as outspoken as the BUF were anti-Semites, they really would out and say it, unlike today where "white nationalist" groups try to hide their anti-Semitism under multiple layers of transparent rationalisation). Using propaganda from any political party/movement is problematic, but it certainly is unacceptable to use propaganda published by a group's political opponents to label that group in an encyclopaedia article. --41.243.221.52 09:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Far be it from me to hold up The Guardian as anything other than a trashy gossip rag, but despite their usual (from my perspective) anti-Jewish and anti-Israel tripe, on this question they take a decidedly different stance, as can readily be seen here. Tomertalk 03:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
It's possible, of course, that The Guardian was simply attempting to revive the old canard about "Jewish Communists" in their coverage, by juxtaposing mention of Jews with mention of Communists... So, same old Guardian after all... Tomertalk 03:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I think you're right not to conflate the issue. From what I was told in my youth, however, the BUF attempted to carry out anti-Semitic activities from their headquarters in Cambridge Heath Rd. While the rhetoric may have been that of a political party, their followers beat up overtly Jewish people and trade unionists. The whole thing is confused, in the 1930s the national socialists, and then an emerging pro-Palestinian left consensus after the 1968 war. There were still many communist, anarchist and radical Jews around in Stepney in the 1970s and 1980s - including Max Levitas. I wonder where they all went? Anything that goes into the article should be well cited, Fishman, for instance, is an impeccable source, being a professor of social history at Queen Mary. Kbthompson 10:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] no pasarán

Is there any connection between the banners statement "They Shall Not Pass" and Gandalf's cry to the Balrog ("You shall not pass!"). Anyone familiar with Tolkein know of a connection? Tomertalk 03:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That phrase dates back to the Battle of Verdun. It may well be assumed that Tolkien was familiar with that one.  :) And on a slightly different tangent, I must say that it's more than a bit surreal to read about how Communists fought against a police escort for a political rally because they didn't agree with the views being presented, and they whoop it up as a big victory. They seem to be the sort who like freedom of speech so long as they approve of what is being said. Afalbrig 05:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Celebrating tyranny

It seems to me the "celebration" of this event is to glorify a mob attack on a group of peacefull, unarmed political protesters. Maybe Alabama should erect a plague commemorating Bull Connor's "they shall not pass" activities? John celona (talk) 13:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"Seems to you" maybe. The BUF "Defence Force" were antisemitic, racist, violent thugs just like their counterparts on the mainland of europe. They were not "peaceful, unarmed" political protesters as your attempt at revisionism suggests. Paulzon (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Seems to ME that the only reason for said march was to incite fear and terror amoung the populace of the East end, that is not free speech, that is terrorism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.183.230 (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The fascists badly misjudged the British working class of the time, they thought that they would rise up and join in the "Jew bashing", but they didn't, they turned on the fascists instead. Paulzon (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)